"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." — Wikipedia
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/usatoday.html
Something smells at Wikipedia._________________

There is a great deal of potential in the Wiki concept, both for excellence and abuse. I take anything on Wikipedia with a grain of salt until I have independently established the credentials of the contributors. That is not an indictment of Wikipedia as much as it is a commentary on the quality of information available on the internet as a whole. Yes, so much is available, and for free, but we use it at our own risk and certainly need to veryify the veracity through multiple sources.

My personal experience with Wikipedia was very short and less than satisfactory. I found them far more interested in procedural issues and heirarchical ranks than in veracity of information.

My experience was probably similar to Oldfrog’s. Some of the info is excellent, some is complete bo**ox, written by someone who had no idea and just cribbed bits of crap from somewhere else – but it all boosts their post count.

It is my experience that the web is rewriting history. I really can’t go into great detail because this isn’t the forum to do so. However, I have read about the UN security council and that China was once removed from the UN security council and thrown out of the UN completely it’s permanent seat given to Chiang Kai-shek of Taiwan (at that time.) I read this on the UN site in ’95, but can no longer find it. Nor do any web searches find mention of it. What I find vilifies Chiang Kai-shek many years ago that wasn’t the case. I am old enough to remember the UN taking the permanent membership away from Chiang Kai-shek and I remember thinking “how could we do this to our friend.” The internet is manipulating our thoughts, what we believe we need to be very mindful of it.

Wouldn't these be examples of zealous or over-zealous individuals, rather than some cabal to overthrow what das Man tells us to "believe"? Frankly, I think indoependent thought is to be encouraged over blind belief, which leads to other sticky questions regarding "truth," ... <ahem>. You are right, DT: this isn't the place .

That depends on how big a nutcase or conspiracy theorist one is. I’m a bigger nutcase then I am a conspiracy theorist, but . . . wait . . . hmm . . . I do believe there are many over zealous people in the world; have they formed a cabal? The answer to that depends on what red neck or liberal you listen too.

As for independent thought I could say that is what got us into this mess, but where would we be without it . . . automatons in a garden somewhere.
With our Lord's blessings take care,

Wouldn't these be examples of zealous or over-zealous individuals, rather than some cabal to overthrow what das Man tells us to "believe"?

No, people who post things as fact that have no basis in fact are purely and simply liars.

My first undergraduate degree was in political science and there are things about the political process that I believe to be true. In the absence of definitive proof those remain in the realm of opinion and personal responsibility prevents me from representing those opinions as fact. There are things that I feel to be true about certain of our nation's political figures but I would never enter those into a Wiki article because I lack definitive proof of any of these. Put them in a blog? Sure, that is just me. Put them in the Wiki? Not hardly, because I can't prove them. Unfortunately a lot of folks put whatever they think might be true into the Wiki and that is its downfall.

No, people who post things as fact that have no basis in fact are purely and simply liars.

Agreed.

However, in today’s instant messaging, instant news coverage, instant gratification and opinionated blogs how do we distinguish between those that lie with those that speak truths? We are overwhelmed with opinion, lies, and truths what in our thought process ferrets out what is right?

With all that has been said, since the articles themselves should be taken with a grain of salt can the outside links provided be trusted? _________________('') Jeremiah 20:9, Mark 12:30, and Romans 10:9-11, 13. ('')

One of Wikipedia's founders, Larry Sanger, says he plans to rewrite it - as Citizendium, a "citizens' compendium". To succeed, he will probably need to attract many of the people who contribute, or used to contribute, to Wikipedia. But whether the "new Wikipedia" will avoid the problems of the old one, or just create new ones of its own, remains to be seen.

Wikipedia is fundamentally anarchical: in principle, any idiot can edit any page at random, whether they know about the subject or not. By contrast, Citizendium's contributors will have to log in using their real names, and editors will be asked to submit their credentials. Unlike Wikipedia, it will value expertise.

I am embarrassed to admit that I only actually read the Wiki article yesterday, and that until then I had assumed a lot of things from the contexts of the replies already here.

Its really one thing to simply have a wide-ranging, yet alternative point of view, and quite another to practice libel out of sheer malice, which as the article evolved, appears to be the overall objective of it in the first place.

I myself have been on the receiving end of vicious character assassination attacks, so I am totally sympathetic with the plight of Mr Seigenthaler.

That said, I remain open on the question, and have to be for philosophical reasons. I give both sides forebearance, even though the slanderer clearly has some sort of agenda.

I have learned that if it is truth we want, in general, it makes more sense to stay on the side of questioning, for when one commits to an answer, all truth's possibilities are withdrawn.

There was one humourous moment, amidst all the seriousness: turns out that Mr Kennedy was mighty tasty. (See bottom of article: its only funny in that context, because its so unexpected.)

Its really one thing to simply have a wide-ranging, yet alternative point of view, and quite another to practice libel out of sheer malice, which as the article evolved, appears to be the overall objective of it in the first place.

Yes, and it is also one thing to hold an alternative point of view and to represent it as fact rather than possibility.

I believe that it takes a goodly amount of academic training and criticism to be able to write a factual article devoid of personal bias. Words have connotative meanings above and beyond their denotative meanings and a responsible author will recognize those. I also believe that if an author is clever there is no good deed that cannot be villified or foul deed that cannot be sanctified. (I once read a compelling argument nominating Nero for sainthood based on the fact that his persecution of the early Christians did more to advance that religion than the followers could ever have hoped to do by themselves)